Dessalines already linked the reading guide I put together, but I want to address something you bring up. Conditions are different from past and present revolutions, correct. In what ways, though? What part of revolutionary strategy is general, and what part is particular? What do we take, and what do we have to figure out? The truth is that much of revolutionary strategy is very similar, but what changes is the class outlook.

Western countries are generally imperialist, and the US is also a settler-colony. This impacts the class demographics. The US Empire is also in decay. Gradually, the working classes have interests more aligned with the global south, ie ending the empire. This type of revolution has not really happened yet, but this doesn't mean revolution isn't still necessary.

Step one is to get organized, join an org like PSL. Step two is to educate yourself and others on theory, history, and practice. Step three is to agitate among the people and bring them into the fold, creating a unified and disciplined working class with the skills and knowledge to correctly overcome revolutionary obstacles.

Orwell's works are taught in school in the west because they are anticommunist fairy tales, and he was a sex abuser and professional snitch for British intelligence.

Yes, they necessarily do.

Here's the basic study guide in question.

Why are you arguing for recolonization of Hong Kong and Taiwan?

That's why it's important to recognize that the state serves its ruling class, which in China's case is the proletariat. That's why they are far more leniant and even allowed this situation in the first place.

"Famously known" among those who disagree with Engels and Marxism in general, sure. Overall, though, Engels is arguing correctly that what matters most is which class wields authority, not the concept of it in general, and defining away authority by calling yourself something different doesn't actually take it away.

The fediverse is going to be more politically charged because picking it over corporate media is already a largely ideological choice.

To be fair, the USSR was the best thing to happen to Eastern Europe. Their points on the Soviets were terrible, but I do think the Soviets were better than modern capitalism in Eastern Europe.

Ah, you're a Georgist! Makes sense, that's why you keep claiming Marx has been "debunked," Marx already debunked Henry George long ago. It seems to be more of a vendetta of yours. Either way, what communists want and what happens in reality are far closer than you allude, you maintain a bourgeois line on existing socialism and make unbacked claims of Marx being "debunked."

The soviet union was a dictatorship of the proletariat. The Soviets brutalized the capitalists, tsarists, fascists, landlords, and kulaks, while liberating the workers and peasants. The USSR had steady and consistent economic growth, and provided free, high quality education and healthcare, full employment, cheap or free housing, and fantastic infrastructure and city planning that still lasts to this day despite capitalism neglecting it. This rapid development resulted in dramatic democratization of society, reduced disparity, doubling of life expectancy, tripling of functional literacy rates to 99.9%, and much more. Living in the 1930s famine would not have been good, but it was the last major famine outside of wartime because the soviets ended famine in their countries.

Literacy rates, societal guarantees in the 1936 constitution, reports on the healthcare system over time, and more are good sources for these claims.

The USSR brought dramatic democratization to society. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer's Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.

When it comes to social progressivism, the soviet union was among the best out of their peers, so instead we must look at who was actually repressed outside of the norm. In the USSR, it was the capitalist class, the kulaks, the fascists who were repressed. This is out of necessity for any socialist state. When it comes to working class freedoms, however, the soviet union represented a dramatic expansion. Soviet progressivism was documented quite well in Albert Syzmanski's Human Rights in the Soviet Union.

The truth, when judged based on historical evidence and contextualization, is that socialism was the best thing to happen to Russia in the last few centuries, and its absence has been devastating.

Death rates spiked:

And wealth disparity skyrocketed alongside the newly impoverished majority:

Capitalism brought with it skyrocketing poverty rates, drug abuse, prostitution, homelessness, crime rates, and lowered life expectancy. An estimated 7 million people died due to the dissolution of socialism and reintroduction of capitalism, and this is why the large majority of post-soviet citizens regret its fall. A return to socialism is the only path forward for the post-soviet countries. A lot of Eastern European countries were swarmed with western capital during the destruction of socialism, which is what temporarily caused the rise of the far-right in these countries, but in time their problems will no longer be able to be ignored.

I do agree that we should not merely emulate soviet socialism, but not in the way you are making the point. Each country has its own unique circumstances, and thus each country will have its own socialist construction process. Dogmatically emulating the Soviet Union is not what we should do, we should learn from their successes and problems while applying Marxist-Leninist thought to our own conditions.

I also have no idea what you mean when you say Marx's numbers and theories do not stand up to critical scrutiny. This is a throwaway line you never justified, but treat as a complete point. I also have no idea why you believe me to be Russian (I'm not), nor why you call me "friend" while wishing for Balkanization of Russia. It's clear that you're more of an enemy of the working classes than a supporter, and again ignored that the population crisis facing Ukraine is far more devastating than Russia. It's best for the war to end swiftly, for both parties, and it's clear that Ukraine does not hold the cards.

The simple fact is that Russian oil production hasn't actually been impacted the way Kiev is posturing. Rather than "Putin math," the idea that production is in shambles is "Kiev math."

Recognize that class struggle is real, and therefore the conquest of power by the working classes is necessary. This requires educating the working classes on political theory, history, and practice. It also requires agitating, being at the front line of struggle, and coherently leading the working classes to higher levels of political awareness in an all-sided struggle. It also requires organizing, forming a revolutionary party, a media apparatus to spread ideas, forming and improving worker and tenant unions, and more.

Probably will see an influx of new accounts, then some will drift away and some will stay.

I don't know why you think communists are submissive and simply want powerful people to tell us what to do. Communists want the working classes to control and direct society, not a tiny class of wealthy capitalists. I also don't get what you mean by "Russia's loss," it's a war of attrition and at this point, even if Kiev surrendered right now, they are facing immense population collapse and crisis and an unstable government. Russia doesn't have the same problems.

All states are authoritarian, so what matters is which class the state served, as all states serve a definite class. China's ruling class is the proletariat.

You're incorrect here, I do not base my understanding of socialism on China. I base my understanding of socialism on Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc, and view both the USSR and PRC as examples of socialism successfully established. Their differences are due to their different circumstances. The simple conclusion you lay out for me does not exist.

I don't mean it as a moral condemnation, or an expectation to be "better," but as an explanation for why we are in disagreement on certain aspects.

You misinterpret Marx's statement. I'm fully aware of Marx's views on the Russian commune movement, the problem is that you assume the Soviet model is what Marx was referring to, and that a more classically Marxist understanding of socialism was not what he meant. Marx was fairly explicit in what a socialist state would be, one where public ownership is principal and the working classes control the state. The Russian peasantry could have bypassed the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and went straight to a dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, but they would not be able to avoid the problem of transitioning small ownership to large, industrialized ownership without the aid of markets.

The fact of the matter is that private property existed de facto in the USSR. One of the mistakes of former socialism was merely trying to punish private ownership, rather than subordinate it to the public sector. Marx analyzed markets as being enormously useful in stitching together all of the small owners and building up productive forces, and public ownership as being superior at running large industry.

Stalin ending the NEP early was a matter of survival, and was correct. China's conditions are different, and now occupies a more classically Marxist economy. It isn't even the same as the NEP, China was closer to the NEP under Mao, the socialist market economy of China is a more classically Marxist economy, with the ability to be so precisely because the imperialists cannot afford to decouple from them.

What exactly do you mean? It makes sense that leftists would support socialism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat, especially in a country that used to thrive under socialism.